 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Economists All: What d'ya think? | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/25/2010 12:49 PM (GMT -6) |   | I want to read Body Politics, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. PoJ is a great book. If you are reading the newer editions, there are some comments by Yoder at the end of each chapter with some clarifications/reflections. Great stuff
Sahid: The Jubilee was addressed to the people of the covenant.
Daniel: I'm still not sure how I feel about social organization. I understand how destructive states are, and the dangers/evils of imperialism, both culturally and economically. I'm not sure how Christology influences politics. Or if we need to readdress what politic means (which I'm in favor of). Does the message of the gospel have anything to say to the sphere of secular political power, or are the two utterly disconnected. Should the Christian be involved in ideological camps that don't start with looking like Jesus on the cross (which are all political/economic ideologies). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/25/2010 2:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Sahid: As to pearls and swine: It's not a matter of calling someTHING murder; it's a matter of calling someONE a person with murder in his heart. And for what? Thinking about socialism? I have no idea what your last comment is addressing. What does state force or wealth redistribution have to do with anything? I was just saying that it's sometimes better just to walk away from people who turn to insults and explosions of anger at the slightest hint of provocation. Do you disagree?
It's not a matter of thinking about socialism; it's a matter of what you are thinking about socialism. When you are a proponent of socialism...after you have been shown that it logically necessarily leads to murder, then you have assumed the murder upon yourself. And even though Daniel seems to have since distanced himself from advocating socialism as strongly as he has done earlier, and in other threads, it remains that he did advocate socialism and has not formally rejected it. That's fine, I do take his distancing himself as progress.
Sahid: What always gets me about criticisms of pacifism such as yours is that, while they do carry weight, they also draw attention back to Jesus himself. When you talk about ethical people dominated by the unethical, doesn't your mind immediately jump to Jesus? He is THE example of criticism 1. If pacifists fall to criticism 1 then Jesus falls even harder. Similarly, criticism 2 about pacifists leaving just coercion to others, applies to Jesus before it hits his pacifist followers. Just before Paul tells the Romans to be subordinate to all governing authorities, he gives what amounts to an answer to your criticism 2. He says that we ought to leave vengeance to the Lord. Jesus on the cross answers criticism 2 also. He takes it upon him self to remain faithfully obedient and leaves it to the Father to faithfully direct events to the hoped for conclusion.
The logic doesn't follow necessarily...wait, maybe I have an unstated proposition...I said, "if ALL the ethical were pacifists"...it seems so "there" to me that I did not explicitly state "if ALL the ethical were pacifists AT ALL TIMES UNDER ALL CONDITIONS"
"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone"
is not such an injunction, so we should not assume that Jesus falls to criticism 1
Vengeance is not self-defense, or other defense. Certainly, if a brute has inflicted harm short of death to yourself...and leaves you...it would be vengeance to then track him down to see that justice is served, that would be a different discussion...but in the midst of the threatening encounter, to defend yourself or another with force is not precluded by saying "Leave vengeance to the Lord"
So, criticism 2 is not defeated by the appeal to Paul or the cross.
Sahid: Here where I stand. IF we are going to choose a rigorous, never-to-be-violated ethic, then pacifism is the one that I thinks make most sense of the New Testament. However, that's a bigger IF than many people are prepared to admit (my self included). Rather than follow a rule, perhaps we should follow three persons.
Which is a complex way of saying complete pacifism is not a coherent strategy. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/25/2010 4:22 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Z: I have no idea what your last comment is addressing. What does state force or wealth redistribution have to do with anything? I was just saying that it's sometimes better just to walk away from people who turn to insults and explosions of anger at the slightest hint of provocation. Do you disagree?
J: Who are you calling the swine? Personally, I don't see Asher's claim that socialists have murder in their hearts as an insult or an explosion of anger. Either God has delegated to the State the authority to use force up to and including killing to compel wealth distribution, or He hasn't. If He hasn't (which is what Asher and I believe), then THAT State killing is murder. And in that case, it's not an insult to call it murder. It's just giving that killing the name our ethical system requires. By murder, I'm just meaning unjustifiable, intentional homicide. Maybe there's a better word for it and I just don't realize it.
Daniel: I believe I discussed Jubilee and the implications of Jubilee throughout Jesus' ministry in another thread. I haven't heard you refute it. Have you read the politics of Jesus?
Jeff: I have addressed it. Tom brought it up for me to address as well. Don't remember the thread. But the point is this: The Jubilee law was about a RETURN of land to a tribe of God's choosing. Prices of land and slaves were calculated BASED on how close to the jubilee they were. IOW, there were no surprises. One didn't act off of LEGAL motivations to acquire what was LEGALLY considered as private property only to have THAT very property ripped from them because of a rule change made by a mob who both wanted their legally acquired stuff and empowered a government that would change the rules accordingly (which is what modern wealth redistribution amounts to).
Like I told Tom at the time, some kind of charitable giving is necessary to the maintenance of a civil society. I'm not arguing otherwise. It's just that arbitrary wealth redistribution with a sword to your throat does the opposite of promote civility. It NATURALLY increases resentment because of the injustice of it. I don't see how the Jubilee laws could have possibly produced that effect in any except those malcontents whose sense of entitlement was warped in the first place.
And any people who honored the jubilee laws would have also done those charitable acts the Law promised would be rewarded with God's blessing. He who is faithful in little will ALSO be faithful in much. He who is NOT faithful in little, will also NOT be faithful in much.
As Tom said, an argument about the role of the State is necessarily an argument about greater goods or a lesser of evils. As I see it, there are at least two problems with our wealth redistribution laws:
1) It is unconstitutional for the federal government to redistribute wealth under non-emergency conditions since there are no congressional powers for that kind of legislation (hence, it is a power reserved to the States or the people of the States, if they choose to define such laws in State Bills of Rights), and
2) It is not even remotely clear that God authorized any such use of government force unless it is necessary to the maintence of the civil order of the society. But most wealth redistribution is just vote buying. Putting that very SAME money back into the economy would result in economic growth, thereby creating jobs and wealth. But you can't BUY VOTES that way.
So basically, most wealth redistribution policy, being unnecessary to civilized order, actually diminishes economic growth for the purpose of buying votes. Moreover, when the economy grows, SO DOES CHARITABLE GIVING! Thus, the perspicuous scriptural view of duty (both private and governmental) is consistent with what ACTUALLY occurs in the real world as far as we are able to tell.
IOW, it's virtually impossible to prove that the arbitrary injustice entailed in modern wealth-redistribution policies produces greater economic well-being in a society than libertarian economics. You would have to let society live over several generations with the different kinds of policies to see WHICH results in the greatest good or least evil. That's not gonna happen, and I'm not aware of a government that has ever been even remotely libertarian, anyway. Governments are in the back pockets of the rich. So in the meanwhile, I've got scripture to lean on to determine what God, Himself, intends the role of the State to be.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/25/2010 4:49:23 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/25/2010 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff,
Could we back off the caps? I know you're doing it for emphasis, but it actually makes it harder to read. I don't have much time right now, but I'll try to get a response to you soon. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/25/2010 5:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher: it would be vengeance to then track him down to see that justice is served
Daniel: I think it might be helpful to define what justice is. Because I'm going to guess that we don't really agree. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/25/2010 7:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Yes, SOMEBODY (sorry for the caps Daniel!), hehe, SOMEBODY define JUSTICE.
But just before somebody does that, I'd like to post Ps. 73, always a favorite:
Psalm 73
A psalm of Asaph.
1Surely God is good to Israel,
to those who are pure in heart.
2 But as for me, my feet had almost slipped;
I had nearly lost my foothold.
3 For I envied the arrogant
when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
4 They have no struggles;
their bodies are healthy and strong.
5 They are free from the burdens common to man;
they are not plagued by human ills.
6 Therefore pride is their necklace;
they clothe themselves with violence.
7 From their callous hearts comes iniquity;
the evil conceits of their minds know no limits.
8 They scoff, and speak with malice;
in their arrogance they threaten oppression.
9 Their mouths lay claim to heaven,
and their tongues take possession of the earth.
10 Therefore their people turn to them
and drink up waters in abundance.
11 They say, "How can God know?
Does the Most High have knowledge?"
12 This is what the wicked are like—
always carefree, they increase in wealth.
13 Surely in vain have I kept my heart pure;
in vain have I washed my hands in innocence.
14 All day long I have been plagued;
I have been punished every morning.
15 If I had said, "I will speak thus,"
I would have betrayed your children.
16 When I tried to understand all this,
it was oppressive to me
17 till I entered the sanctuary of God;
then I understood their final destiny.
18 Surely you place them on slippery ground;
you cast them down to ruin.
19 How suddenly are they destroyed,
completely swept away by terrors!
20 As a dream when one awakes,
so when you arise, O Lord,
you will despise them as fantasies.
21 When my heart was grieved
and my spirit embittered,
22 I was senseless and ignorant;
I was a brute beast before you.
23 Yet I am always with you;
you hold me by my right hand.
24 You guide me with your counsel,
and afterward you will take me into glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but you?
And earth has nothing I desire besides you.
26 My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart
and my portion forever.
27 Those who are far from you will perish;
you destroy all who are unfaithful to you.
28 But as for me, it is good to be near God.
I have made the Sovereign LORD my refuge;
I will tell of all your deeds.
-------------------------
The red text is interesting in the way that it suggests, in our own venacular, it all comes out in the wash in the end. Ultimately (i.e., eschatologically) the wicked WILL be brought to embrace the consequences of their actions.
I can't help think that whatever socioeconomic/political system is put in place now it will be less than perfectly just. When I read passages like this I get a bit confused about other passages where God expresses pleasure at those who pursue justice and who do justly. I guess we're to seek as much justice as possible and then leave the rest to eschatology. But then what about turning the cheek? Isn't that choosing not to seek justice? Isn't that just letting a moment of wickedness pass by unattended (by us) and leaving it up to God to judge?
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 7/25/2010 8:38:49 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/25/2010 9:26 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Tom: I guess we're to seek as much justice as possible and then leave the rest to eschatology.
Jeff: Exactly. And the jubilee laws WERE more just in that they gave people information ahead of time on the rules for private property attainment. If there was not obvious vote-buying in so much of modern wealth redistribution policy, it would be a little more bearable. But throw that same money into the economy and you will get economic growth. But then vote-buying is not going to result.
Might it be that the State can move further and further from reciprocity when circumstances become extreme? I wouldn't argue otherwise. But that's not how government tends to grow. I think libertarians and others of conservative bent have done enough detailed history to show that governments tend to create many of the very problems they subsequently pose as the solution to. IOW, they create, by their unjust policies, the very circumstances that seem to require more draconian governmental measures.
Tom: But then what about turning the cheek? Isn't that choosing not to seek justice? Isn't that just letting a moment of wickedness pass by unattended (by us) and leaving it up to God to judge?
Jeff: Turning the other cheek is just like feeding our enemy. It isn't an absolute. We do it precisely when we can overcome evil by those actions. There are other times when we shouldn't feed our enemy, hungry or not--we should kill them, as David did. It depends on the circumstances. Otherwise, Christ was making no intelligible sense in claiming he was exegeting the Law aright in the Sermon. IOW, consequentialism is the bottom line for all adjudication of right-relating.
But I take it from scripture that insomuch as government is to deter evil and praise the good, that it should be as just as possible in its use of force. And this would seem to imply the State should never compel wealth redistribution unless the civility of society itself is at stake. If we aren't to intervene for Christians starving when they are hungry due to being busy-bodies (Thessalonians), it's obvious that consequentialism takes into account considerations beyond a particular person's immediate comfort or even life.
And that's why this subject is so complex. It can not be solved by over-simplistic "isms." It takes a combination of State justice and personal charity/compassion to perpetuate a civil state of a society over the long run. The State, alone, is not sufficient to the task, because God never intended it to be, as is indicated by the fact that God, per the Torah, left certain kinds of charities up to individuals to do on their own. The failure to do those charities was to result in the foregoing of God's blessing, not State punishment.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/25/2010 9:35:55 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/26/2010 3:46 AM (GMT -6) | | A: When you are a proponent of socialism...after you have been shown that it logically necessarily leads to murder, then you have assumed the murder upon yourself.
Z: I'm simply not equipped to address that sort of thing, so maybe my comment was hasty. As I understand socialism there is no such direct connection to murder in the heart. If you guys were using the term in a different specific way and you've shown that it logically implies such a thing, then you are right. But I'm not patient enough to sift all the forums, (and I'm a little skeptical that such a thing has been done). Depending on how you shade the term, you can credibly apply the label "socialist" to such diverse people as Moses, Jesus, Mother Teresa, FDR, and kids in a kindergarten class who share their snacks.
A: "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone" is not such an injunction, so we should not assume that Jesus falls to criticism 1
Z: Criticism 1 was that pacifism leaves the ethical to be dominated by the unethical. This is what Jesus did. He left himself and all his people to be dominated by the unethical. Do you contend that Jesus has ended domination of the ethical by the unethical? If not, Jesus is the first person to whom criticism 1 should be directed. He's omniscient and omnipotent - if anyone is responsible for leaving the ethical to be dominated by the unethical it is him. In short, criticism 1 creates major theodicy problems for the Christian. If allowing bad things to happen equals a faulty ethic, then God is the faultiest. Either criticism 1 has already been taken care of before we get to questions of pacifism or else it's not clear that Christianity itself overcomes this very criticism.
A: Vengeance is not self-defense, or other defense. Certainly, if a brute has inflicted harm short of death to yourself...and leaves you...it would be vengeance to then track him down to see that justice is served, that would be a different discussion...but in the midst of the threatening encounter, to defend yourself or another with force is not precluded by saying "Leave vengeance to the Lord"
So, criticism 2 is not defeated by the appeal to Paul or the cross.
Z: Yes, but a broader look at the context within which Paul writes makes it clear that the Christ-imitating, cross-bearing ethic he advocates encourages an acceptance of suffering (and not just a refusal of reciprocal violence). Paul himself "fill[s ] up in [his] flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions." It not hard to find Paul and other NT authors advocating an acceptance of suffering and persecution. And such advocacy nearly always is grounded upon the example of Christ. Jesus and the NT authors did exactly what criticism 2 accuses pacifists of: they willingly accepted suffering at the hands of the unethical while leaving the practical consequences/making-things-right to someone else, namely, the Father.
A: Which is a complex way of saying complete pacifism is not a coherent strategy.
Z: No. It's a complex way of saying coherent strategies are idolatrous: principled pacifism being one example - legitimate violence being another.
J: I think libertarians and others of conservative bent have done enough detailed history to show that governments tend to create many of the very problems they subsequently pose as the solution to. IOW, they create, by their unjust policies, the very circumstances that seem to require more draconian governmental measures.
Z: I think it's appropriate to take that even a step further. To use Paul's terms, "the powers of this dark world" create the very problems that they propose to overcome. This sort of enslavement is not just carried out by states. The same thing is done by persons and private organizations - take Monsanto for example. They create food scarcity and then advertise themselves as the company that feeds the world. An out of control business can be just as evil and murderous as an out of control state. And this is where I think ideas like socialism can make their case. The political Right says that government can do bad things and so must be limited (by the private sector). The political Left says that the private sector can do bad things and so must be limited (by government). Both sides talk past each other. Both do well to address their respective problems, but both are blind to the way their solution perpetuates the mirror image of that which they were seeking to end. Ironically, through short-sightedness they act just like their respective targets - they perpetuate (the mirror image of) the problem they propose to solve. This is evidence that all these parties are caught in the same vicious system. Governments and the advocates of limited government along with private parties and the advocates of limited private parties are all only perpetuating the very injustice they claim to fight. What is needed is something entirely different. Rather than seek to consolidate power (be it public or private) or seek to restrain power, the church needs to be a witness to the fact that another world is possible. We need to remind all those caught up in this system that things are not hopeless. We need to extend our hospitality to them. We need to show that the question of who is in power has already been answered and so need not be a matter of contention.Post Edited (Sahid) : 7/26/2010 3:51:06 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/26/2010 10:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Sahid,
Sahid: Governments and the advocates of limited government along with private parties and the advocates of limited private parties are all only perpetuating the very injustice they claim to fight. What is needed is something entirely different. Rather than seek to consolidate power (be it public or private) or seek to restrain power, the church needs to be a witness to the fact that another world is possible."
Daniel: I like this.
Sahid: No. It's a complex way of saying coherent strategies are idolatrous: principled pacifism being one example - legitimate violence being another.
Daniel: Could you expand on this? I don't see pacifism as being the other side of legitimate violence. To use Boyd's language, pacifism is the acceptance of "power-under". For Christian pacifists, such as myself, pacifism is a commitment to not only non-violence, but to solidarity and identification with the oppressed. To become the scum of the earth, willingly and with pleasure. It's a commitment to imitate Christ. Perhaps that should all be obvious in what it means to be a Christian. But I have a feeling there is need for the modifiers when you compare the beliefs of myself and, say, Jerry Falwell. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/26/2010 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Z: No. It's a complex way of saying coherent strategies are idolatrous: principled pacifism being one example - legitimate violence being another.
Please enlighten us all as to how coherent strategies are idolatrous. For my part, this is by far the best candidate sentence in this whole thread to attribute to lunacy. Postmodern lunacy.
Do you believe the law of identity and non-contradiction are 1) coherent and 2) therefore idolatrous inasmuch as they represent a coherent strategy for epistemology?
If one neither subscribes to pacifism nor legitimate violence...does one simply subscribe to nothing, take no principled stance on this (or anything)...do whatever YOU think God is telling you at any given moment...and if you have no direct word from God, the fact that you have an attitude submissive to Him is suppose to be insurance enough that you are making the right decision whatever it is?
Tell us what you would do...without "what you would do" being a coherent strategy. See...you simply can't speak at that point...either what you say is aimed at coherence...or the content is meaningless babble, emotional waves embedded in speech intended to modulate the emotional content of others towards complying with whatever you want. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/26/2010 5:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel: Could you expand on this? I don't see pacifism as being the other side of legitimate violence. To use Boyd's language, pacifism is the acceptance of "power-under". For Christian pacifists, such as myself, pacifism is a commitment to not only non-violence, but to solidarity and identification with the oppressed. To become the scum of the earth, willingly and with pleasure. It's a commitment to imitate Christ. Perhaps that should all be obvious in what it means to be a Christian. But I have a feeling there is need for the modifiers when you compare the beliefs of myself and, say, Jerry Falwell.
Zach: Defining the terms. It's always the first thing.
I'm happy to try to redefine my terms to suit the majority. "Pacifism" to put it simply is the state of being peaceful. We can get more technical about it, but I think that's good enough for now. "Principled pacifism" (and possibly what Asher calls "complete pacifism" ) I take to be a commitment to adhere to pacifism rigorously. It might be accurate to call me a pacifist, but it is not accurate to call me rigorously pacifist. The principled pacifist claims that violence is never appropriate (while possibly restricting this is some way, the principled pacifist does in some meaningful way retain the "never." ) I used to be such a principled pacifist. The problem I am confronted with, however, is that to be a principled pacifist is to pledge oneself to an objective standard rather to a person (or rather three persons). It's a subtle distinction, but to me it's an important one. I see it as subtly dangerous to be ultimately subject to a law or object standard when I ought to be ultimately subject to God. God, as evidenced by the Old Testament and the New, works amongst even the sinful acts of men to pull together something good. While killing Philistines is not the Christian thing to do, it was the Davidic thing to do. While immoral according to a legalistic pacifist, it was appropriate for that time and place. Our time and place, I think, warrants a way of living that approaches principled pacifism so closely that the two virtually identical.
Your pacifism is a commitment to non-violence and to solidarity with the oppressed. But why? Why are you committed to these? I presume because of a prior commitment to Jesus. Perhaps it's simply a matter of emphasis or a reminder for me, but I try to keep it clear in my mind that I'm only COMMITTED to Jesus and secondarily, consequentially I act as in the same way as one who is committed to pacifism.
Even as I write this, it sounds lame to me. Why am I spending metal energy trying to parse out these probably insignificant distinctions? It's basically a question of legalism. Pacifism that expresses itself legalistically is in danger of falling into the problems of the Pharisees and the Judiazers: missing the big picture while rigorously adhering to the letter. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/26/2010 5:49 PM (GMT -6) | | A: Please enlighten us all as to how coherent strategies are idolatrous.
Z: If anything is elevated to the point that it becomes a replacement for God, it's idolatrous. Don't you agree? When a strategy or ethic becomes coherent in the way that we were talking about (it becomes a moral absolute demanding absolute obedience), it has taken God's place and is thus idolatrous. Legalism, be it pacifist or not, idolatrously replaces subjective personal God with an objective impersonal law. Jesus spent a good amount of timed correcting similar mistakes. John 5:39-40
A: Do you believe the law of identity and non-contradiction are 1) coherent and 2) therefore idolatrous inasmuch as they represent a coherent strategy for epistemology?
Z: Look back to the original statement I made: "Here where I stand. IF we are going to choose a rigorous, never-to-be-violated ethic, then pacifism is the one that I thinks make most sense of the New Testament. However, that's a bigger IF than many people are prepared to admit (my self included). Rather than follow a rule, perhaps we should follow three persons."
I was not discussing coherent strategies "for epistemology." You added that after the fact. The "coherence" that I was discussing is the sort that manifests itself in "a rigorous, never-to-be-violated ethic." Such absolute obedience is due to God. Epistemology not the subject of my comment, and I assumed it could be taken within the context of this discussion.
I think my comment to Daniel address your last comments. If not, let me know and I'll try again.Post Edited (Sahid) : 7/26/2010 5:56:28 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/26/2010 6:14 PM (GMT -6) | | So, by your statement you only meant coherent strategies in the field of ethics were idolatrous?
Even if just that, my other paragraph has not been answered:
If one neither subscribes to pacifism nor legitimate violence...does one simply subscribe to nothing, take no principled stance on this (or anything)...do whatever YOU think God is telling you at any given moment...and if you have no direct word from God, the fact that you have an attitude submissive to Him is suppose to be insurance enough that you are making the right decision whatever it is?
I think there is no disjunction between ethics and epistemology.
I don't see having a coherent strategy as idolatrous. First, you could always argue that what someone is holding as a coherent strategy is not in fact a coherent strategy...of course, this would require the logical deconstruction of that strategy.
But, if what they are in fact holding is truly 1) coherent and 2) a strategy or a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.
Then one could always argue that it wasn't the ONLY coherent strategy...but that of course gives the person your agreement that THEIR coherent strategy is fine to act upon.
And given that the One we worship is the Divine Logos, then all TRULY coherent strategies are in accord with the ordering principle of the Logos. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/26/2010 6:26 PM (GMT -6) | | A: If one neither subscribes to pacifism nor legitimate violence...does one simply subscribe to nothing, take no principled stance on this (or anything)...do whatever YOU think God is telling you at any given moment...and if you have no direct word from God, the fact that you have an attitude submissive to Him is suppose to be insurance enough that you are making the right decision whatever it is?
Z: Yes. whatever God is telling me at any given moment. For the past couple millennia worth of moments, he's been speaking through the Bible and through the Spirit. I can offer you no insurance. It's those who desire insurance from static law that idolatrously substitute it for the living God. One can read the Bible in a faithful way: that is without making it the ultimate authority instead of God himself. Same for ethical stances. They must not substitute themselves for God -they are not the ultimate authority.
A: I think there is no disjunction between ethics and epistemology.
Z: Fine, but we were focusing on one and not the other.
A: And given that the One we worship is the Divine Logos, then all TRULY coherent strategies are in accord with the ordering principle of the Logos.
Z: The living Word. Not the static, indivisible logos of Aristotle or the Stoics. John makes this abundantly clear. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/26/2010 6:52 PM (GMT -6) | | So, no objectivity at all for you? It's your subjective interpretation of whatever God subjectively wants at any given moment? God can change at a whim?
And since there is no cue ahead of time from God, even your subjective interpretations are based on what you think God wanted up til a few seconds ago. And when He changes, it is like cognitive whiplash for you because you had no way of knowing which turn was gonna be made, because there are no ordering principles or guidelines to help you in this regard.
Z: The living Word. Not the static, indivisible logos of Aristotle or the Stoics. John makes this abundantly clear.
There is nothing about God that remains the same for you, even some aspect?
I have had direct encounter with God on three occasions (visions that included sight, sound, and touch), so I am not a follower of the God of the Greek philosophers. But there are some things about God that do not change, and those things were evident in my experiences.
Maybe we don't have the same God. Maybe we have no place of common agreement upon which to build any meaningful dialogue. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/26/2010 8:50 PM (GMT -6) | | | Z: I think it's appropriate to take that even a step further. To use Paul's terms, "the powers of this dark world" create the very problems that they propose to overcome. This sort of enslavement is not just carried out by states. The same thing is done by persons and private organizations - take Monsanto for example. They create food scarcity and then advertise themselves as the company that feeds the world. An out of control business can be just as evil and murderous as an out of control state. And this is where I think ideas like socialism can make their case. The political Right says that government can do bad things and so must be limited (by the private sector). The political Left says that the private sector can do bad things and so must be limited (by government). Both sides talk past each other. Both do well to address their respective problems, but both are blind to the way their solution perpetuates the mirror image of that which they were seeking to end. Ironically, through short-sightedness they act just like their respective targets - they perpetuate (the mirror image of) the problem they propose to solve. This is evidence that all these parties are caught in the same vicious system. Governments and the advocates of limited government along with private parties and the advocates of limited private parties are all only perpetuating the very injustice they claim to fight. What is needed is something entirely different. Rather than seek to consolidate power (be it public or private) or seek to restrain power, the church needs to be a witness to the fact that another world is possible. We need to remind all those caught up in this system that things are not hopeless. We need to extend our hospitality to them. We need to show that the question of who is in power has already been answered and so need not be a matter of contention.
J: I agree with everything I think you're saying, here. It's just that I would qualify it by saying that the State, like imperfect parents, does diminish evil, and therefore we're better off with the State than without it just as infants are better off with imperfect parents than without them. Otherwise, I have no idea how to make sense of Rom. 13 given the rationale that Paul gives there for WHY we are to pay taxes. It's not because they ask. It's because they ARE God's minister unto good--but apparently only in the sense that things would be even worse without them, for clearly the State is not RIGHTEOUS. Thus, I take it that they would diminish evil EVEN MORE if they:
1) Exercised only that authority God delegated to them, and
2) Performed that duty to the best of their ability.
Instead, too many officials abuse power. And yes, all classes of people tend to abuse whatever power they have. No doubt about it. It's just that I'm saying that authority (even authority to use force), per se, is not intrinsically problematic, otherwise God couldn't exercise authority or do so forcefully. And if God can DO it righteously, He can DELEGATE it if He sees fit for purposes of His own.<!-- Edit -->
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/26/2010 10:11 PM (GMT -6) | | A: So, no objectivity at all for you? It's your subjective interpretation of whatever God subjectively wants at any given moment? God can change at a whim?
Z: Who's gonna stop him? Is God bound by someone or something? No. He is in control of himself. If he chooses to changed, he changes. If he chooses to stay the same, he stays the same. He's God.
A: And when He changes...
Z: When has he ever changed? What sort of changes are you proposing God undergoes?
A: ...it is like cognitive whiplash for you because you had no way of knowing which turn was gonna be made, because there are no ordering principles or guidelines to help you in this regard.
Z: He's promised. I trust his promises. If he did break his promises it'd be whiplash for you too. We have all kinds of guidelines, but they rest upon God himself. Our confidence in those guidelines are built upon our confidence in the personal God. That's faith: the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
A: There is nothing about God that remains the same for you, even some aspect?
Z: I didn't say that. Most things about God remain the same.
A: Maybe we don't have the same God. Maybe we have no place of common agreement upon which to build any meaningful dialogue.
Z: Maybe not. But I didn't say that God changes in any aspect. God is personal (as I assume you agree), so there could be changes in the things he does. At one point he was creating light, and another point he was healing a man born blind. But I don't think his character has changed. And I don't think his faithfulness and lovingkindness has changed. Grab any other passage from scripture that describes God's changelessness, and I will probably agree with it. But what a lot of people do is assume that since God HASN'T changed he CAN'T change. The verses that describe an inability of God to change tend to be surrounded by other verses that use plenty of non-literal language. If he's God he can do anything, but that doesn't mean he will do anything. I hope none of that is a reason to refuse to engage me.
J: It's just that I would qualify it by saying that the State, like imperfect parents, does diminish evil, and therefore we're better off with the State than without it just as infants are better off with imperfect parents than without them. Otherwise, I have no idea how to make sense of Rom. 13 given the rationale that Paul gives there for WHY we are to pay taxes. It's not because they ask. It's because they ARE God's minister unto good--but apparently only in the sense that things would be even worse without them, for clearly the State is not RIGHTEOUS.
Z: Agreed. (Except I don't see Paul claiming that things would be worse without government.) Now incorporate verse 1 into this thought. Paul is talking about EVERY governing authority. So reread your above comment and replace the words "state" and "they" with Nero or Hitler or some other evil example of government. The passage takes on a different feel. That's the feel the original audience would have. They weren't dealing with a so-so government that was trying its best to be just. They were dealing with a government that had just finished expelling Jews and was bent on world domination. So while I technically agree with you, you've got to remember that these were the sort of people who didn't take it for granted that they should be subordinate to government - they had to be reminded because their ancestors had lived through Pharaoh, Ahab, Nebuchadnezzar, and now Claudius and Nero. Some of their descendants would live through (and die in) the Holocaust. Try telling them that every government is established by God and is a minister to reward good without a heavy dose of irony.
J: Instead, too many officials abuse power. And yes, all classes of people tend to abuse whatever power they have. No doubt about it. It's just that I'm saying that authority (even authority to use force), per se, is not intrinsically problematic, otherwise God couldn't exercise authority or do so forcefully. And if God can DO it righteously, He can DELEGATE it if He sees fit for purposes of His own.
Z: Agreed. But that's hardly the reasoning Nero or even Constantine had on his mind. These men took whatever power was available and desirable. They made no claim to the mandate of YHWH. It is more accurate to put it the way that Isaiah, Habakkuk, and Paul do. States do bad things, yet God orders their actions. Chapter 10 of Politics of Jesus nails it (and comes across much more pro-government than I usually do).
Furthermore, I applaud your use of third-person pronouns. It is "they" who are the governing authorities in Romans 13, never "us." That chapter make no provision for Christians to use force (or to do anything for that matter except remain subordinate). The chapter is about how and why to respond to force without force.Post Edited (Sahid) : 7/26/2010 10:59:29 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/26/2010 11:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Z: If he's God he can do anything
Can He stop being God? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/27/2010 12:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Z: If he's almighty, he can do whatever he wants. Not a radical claim; it's implied in the meaning of the term. A priori. Omnipotent beings can do whatever they want; God is an omnipotent being; therefore God can do whatever he wants. The syllogism is valid, so to argue otherwise one would have to redefine the terms or deny that God is omnipotent.
Can God successfully argue that a valid a priori syllogism is not valid? | | Back to Top | | |
| 134 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:21 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|